Someone needs to be in charge. The Nation needs to trust them to make decisions, and it might need some limits to be enforced on their behaviour. Here in the UK, this is the role of the elected government, and there is a suite of laws that says what they are, and are now allowed to do. In this democracy, we allow challenges to be presented by the opposition – the leader of the opposition creates a ‘shadow cabinet’, which mirrors the elected party’s Cabinet or front bench, to challenge in debates and to vote on parliamentary decisions have to be taken. However, the Prime Minister provides leadership for their Cabinet, effectively providing leadership for parliament and, thus, for the country. It’s important that the PM says in touch with the mood of parliament and of the country, so that their decisions aren’t just taken in isolation.
So, how does the leader listen to the country? There are probably three main inputs: parliamentary colleagues but importantly also the electorate itself, probably as reported in the media. Lastly, the government is likely to depend upon its own data gathering, and also results from opinion polls, which it may, or may not, initiate.
Let’s take these in turn. The media presents a biassed view of the world, according to its editorial stance, which may either support, be neutral or be hostile to the party in parliament. The press partly reflects the views of its readership, as ‘filtered’ by its editorial team. But there will be common themes reflected through all political viewpoints. If, for example, the public is concerned about specific issues, these are likely to be analysed in all sections of the media, and whatever the current news stories are, they are likely to be presented fairly uniformly. This, for example, if the populace is concerned about a particular issue, it will likely be discussed across the political spectrum, the difference being probably the proposed solution.
So, how should our leaders make important decisions? It almost goes without saying that their pronouncements should be selfless – not made for reasons of personal gain or benefit, but for the good of the Nation. This is tricky, since there exist all sorts of temptation. Ambition, self-protection, financial gain, all of these may, or may not, be influences. After all, when faced with the ambition of others, who may quite naturally both envy your position and disagree with your opinion, it must, surely, be tempting to put personal success towards the top of ones list of considerations. But it does seem sensible for our leaders to be selfless, doesn’t it? We can look to history to provide examples where selfish motivations, either on behalf of one’s self or even one’s nation have proved harmful. So, it seems good to be generous of heart, and considerate of the needs and motivation of others.
It isn’t the place of this treatise to lecture or to educate. Rather, I hope to provoke thoughtfulness about the complexities of government and the mind-stunning breadth and complexity of the decision making arena. Because everyone has a role to play, even if it’s only to cast our votes wisely, or to engage in thoughtful conversation about some of the issues. Everyone has some expertise or other, and all have unique perspectives, so the views of all should be valuable.
We need our leaders to make good decisions – that benefit our nation and our society. All too often, decisions seem to be taken for dubious reasons. we’ve all seen how politicians make apparently self-serving decisions – to change political boundaries, to benefit one political party, for example. I suppose this can be countered with an argument alone the lines of ‘well, our party has the right ideas for society (implying that the opposition doesn’t), so the decision is justified’. Hmmm.
Organisations make decisions as well, and these may or may not be good. For example, the leader of a university may want growth – and this may be because they will personally benefit from a greater fiefdom, or there may be an overall benefit to be gained. These decisions may need to be controlled for the good of society, but I suspect that all too often out political representatives (and let us not forget that politicians are elected to represent society, not simply for their own sense of importance) somehow lose focus and allow decisions that are plainly wrong. And let’s not forget outcomes from corruption. If our representatives don’t truly have societal interests at heart, then arguably they don’t deserve to be in positions of influence.
I’m sorry. This is turning out to be a bit of a rant. I’d hoped to keep my views out of this, but it seems that ideas of right and wrong – of fairness – are important. And those are variable, aren’t they? Doesn’t the ‘right’ view depend on one’s perspective?